The UK Supreme Court rules that the legal definition of a woman is based solely on biological sex.

LondonThe Scottish government has lost a complex political and legal battle with many implications. sex In the aforementioned legal framework—woman or man—it makes clear that it is based on biological sex. Therefore, a gender recognition certificate does not change someone's sex, which is associated with the condition at birth, although it can change gender identity and can be a symbol of that identity. The decision was made unanimously by the five judges.

The court's ruling responded to a long-running legal battle between the feminist organization For Women Scotland (FWS) and the Scottish government over the definition of woman based on what was established in a law passed by the Holyrood Parliament in 2018, which aimed to ensure gender balance in companies. A trans woman with a certificate could legally be considered a woman. But FWS objected and took the case to the Supreme Court in 2022.

Author JK Rowling, a supporter of FWS, welcomed the court's ruling on the X network: "It took three extraordinary and tenacious Scottish women with a homemade army behind them to protect women and girls across the UK," she wrote.

However, Justice Patrick Stewart Hodge, vice president of the court, reading the verdict, stated that "trans people have not lost legal protections under our equality law; they are protected both because of their biological sex and because of what the law calls 'gender transition'". However, legal protections are based on biological sex, not the sex related to acquired identity. However, the court holds that these protections do not confer the right to use sex-segregated services. And while it doesn't specifically mention restrooms, it does mention unisex spaces, such as changing rooms and shelters for women who have experienced domestic violence. The implication is that these places will be reserved only for biological women.

The judge also noted that the 2010 Equality Act offers transgender people protection against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and harassment based on their acquired gender.

Outside the court, members of the FWS hailed the ruling as a true victory. Susan Smith, one of the FWS leaders, asserted: "We are not against any specific group. We believe that the Equality Act protects everyone based on the characteristics defined by the 2010 Act." But there is reason for some concern among the trans community. Because the verdict will make it more likely that people who have changed their gender will be excluded from certain spaces—precisely what the activists wanted—such as security and privacy, reserved exclusively for women born as such.

University of Glasgow jurist Michael Foran, who has written extensively on the subject in recent years, has highlighted that "the clarity [that the Supreme Court has established for the 2010 Equality Act] will affect areas of the law that had been operating under flawed assumptions about what the law said."

Political repercussions

As for the political repercussions, some of the actors involved in the standoff have breathed a sigh of relief. The ruling is a resounding defeat for the Scottish government and its legal interpretation, but above all, it is a defeat for Former Prime Minister Nicola Sturgeon, which in 2018 promoted the now-rejected text, which aimed to ensure gender balance on the boards of public sector companies. This formula explicitly included transgender women who had obtained the gender recognition certificate.

Later, in 2022, the Scottish National Assembly passed the Scottish Gender Recognition Reform Act, but It did not come into force because the British government blocked it.. Downing Street argued that the proposed reform could have an adverse impact on the Equality Act 2010, a state-wide legislation that protects rights based on biological sex, the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

The The Scottish government's appeal to the Supreme Court against the blockade was unsuccessful. And in May 2024, Scottish First Minister and Sturgeon's replacement, John Swinney, announced that his government was abandoning plans to reform the Gender Self-Determination Act. Since then, Swinney has attempted to distance himself from the issue, suggesting—implicitly—that it was more a concern of his predecessors, particularly Sturgeon's, than his own.

Both the Scottish and Westminster governments have stated that they need to sit down and see exactly what the ruling entails. The focus is on how it will be applied on a day-to-day basis in various settings. However, some spaces have been made clear that they will only be open to women born as such.